Science vs. climate change denial
The Royal Society has written to ExxonMobil to ask it to stop funding the climate change denial lobby. The Guardian's report also links a PDF of the original letter, which is worth a look. This comes a day after they published an extract from George Monbiot's book in which he traces the history of companies funding bodies that have the specific aim of discrediting science that could harm their objectives. I think people who do this are sick and wrong, so I'm glad that the Royal Society is stepping in to try to preserve science from those who seek to obfuscate and mislead the public for purely selfish ends.
N.B no more below.
N.B no more below.
posted by Peter at 15:38
11 Comments:
Let me be clear from the outset that if anyone is falsifying evidence or just plain lying about climate change, that's wrong.
At the same time, I think the way the debate is framed is perhaps a bit unfair. That is, are the Royal Society's scientists angels or is it not also the case that they stand to gain in prestige and wealth by having climate be a greater rather than a lesser concern? That is, let us not cast aspersions about motives only in one direction. There are plenty of scientists on all sides of any issue who would make the most ridiculous and unfounded claims if it will get them an article in a leading journal, the keynote address at a major conference, or a sweet book deal.
I hope we are not down to comparing the absurd profits of ExonMobile to book deals. Though your point is fair Kevin, I find the second much less dangerous than Total's latest add where they sing "I would do anything for you" while showing lovely cuddly pictures.
Hopefully civil society and (not holding breath) governments will be able to discredit such blatant propaganda. I think energy companies are necessary (today) I take issue with their misinformation campaigns.
Ohh and to touch on comments a couple posts back, R Murdoch was voted no 1 on Vanity Fairs 'New Establishment' leaders who represent " movable band of thinkers, owners, creators and buyers who set the agenda in myriad arenas."
I know I for one have always regarded a pronouncement from Vanity Fair as dispositive, so I guess that settles that.
The contrast is between accountable science published in peer-reviewed journals and deliberate innuendo designed to clog up proper debate. If a scientist exaggerates claims about climate change then other scientists will demonstrate that by showing that the methodology and results do not support the claims made. It's as simple as that.
See, I don't think it is that simple. Peer-review is no guarantee that extravagant or mistaken claims will be challenged. Articles with shoddy methodology, silly claims, and asinine research are published all the time in peer-reviewed journals. Historically, peer review has certainly not been a guarantor of proper debate (think Galileo, who was after all, decried as immensely wrong by a panel of his peers). Phrenology was thought to be true for 100 years.
Scientists in our own time used to say butter was the enemy; now they don't. They used to say all cholesterol was bad; now they don't. They used to say eggs were the enemy; now they don't.
Scientists are just as susceptible as the rest of us to prejudice, confirmation bias, causal fallacy, and herd mentality. And who can imagine more intense self-herding than peer-reviewed journals and tenure and promotion policies based on articles published therein? Who can imagine an environment more ripe for confirmation bias?
I think politics and business are two "environments" more ripe for confirmation bias...
Why would you think that?
That deserves its own post about elites in business and politics who often help each other (even if they are nominally in opposing parties) to stay in power. Its is also about the selection-bias that exists in both of those worlds and how both of these factors leads to a confirmation bias...I am being brief and making large generalisations over complex issues with which you will no doubt take issue but please keep in mind that my original purpose was simply to state that I can imagine an environment more ripe for confirmation bias than academia.
Fair enough, but do bear in mind that "staying in power" is epiphenomenal to confirmation bias and selection bias. I'll be very interested, indeed, to hear how there are unique factors or factors that affect politics and business in a unique way. That is, both staying in power and making money are incentives for scientists/academics in addition to businessmen and politicians. But, at least in the cases of most western countries, politics and business don't have an equivalent to tenure (though perhaps a case could be made that "national champion" companies are the equivalent, e.g. Total).
So already we can imagine an environment at least as ripe as academia for confirmation bias, business and/or politics. I would contend that the power or money involved in business and/or politics on a completely different scale than that in academia, thus perhaps enriching the tendency towards confirmation bias by raising the 'exit costs', the lack of tenure raises the value of a confirmation bias. But this is starting to diverge rapidly from 'science vs the climate change denial'...
It is diverging, but I do have to clarify. I don't think you understood my post. I did not concede that politics and business are "at least" as ripe for confirmation bias as academia (the two are separable and, in fact, separate). I also did not say lack of tenure enriches the value of confirmation bias; rather, I said the tandem of tenure and peer-review journals (and I would add the faculty appointment system in the U.S.) are efficient causes of confirmation bias.
Also, if you're going to say confirmation bias happens in business and in politics, you're 1) going to have to be using that term analogically and not univocally 2) need to establish just how it happens 3) explain what you mean by 'exit costs' and how they might affect 'confirmation bias' as you are using that term 4). explain further what exactly that whole post means. All of which, you're right, probably deserves its own post.
Post a Comment
<< Home